Hold Congress Accountable

Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

State Exchanges - Is This Our Last Hope Against Obamacare?

On Thursday, Republican House Speaker John Boehner gave an interview with ABC News in which he famously declared, "Obamacare is the law of the land". But the battle as they say, has just begun.

FreedomWorks is leading that charge, taking action against the implementation of state-run health exchanges, and by extension, striking a critical blow against the heart of Obamacare.

With a Friday deadline looming, states are pressed with the task of determining whether or not to implement health insurance 'exchanges', a new government-run “marketplace” for obtaining health insurance. These exchanges are designed for the management of billions of taxpayer dollars in insurance premium subsidies that are to be distributed to private insurance companies.

"It’s like a supermarket that only sells cereal. The exchange will sell only the government-designed plan. In most states, exchanges will be an 800 number, a Web site and a government office, like the DMV."

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains what that really translates to for residents of those states who choose to implement such an exchange.

Practically a microcosm of the entire Obama platform during his first term, and certainly representative of what the future holds should Obamacare indeed become the law of the land.

So how can we use state exchanges to fight the new health care law? Do nothing.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh stated that "there could be some delays if the governors refuse to set up the exchanges", but simple delays could beget much larger problems for the health care overhaul. To understand this, it is necessary to understand why these exchanges need to be created in the first place.

The federal government has admitted that it can't pay for this health care 'marketplace', which would cost between $10 to $100 million per year in each state. Hence the necessity for each state to set up its own exchange, shouldering some of the costs.

The problem with that notion is that nowhere in the 2,700 page behemoth known as the Affordable Care Act, is it written that the states will be required to do so; the assumption being that the states would simply go along with the federal governments wishes. Because of this, the government cannot legally enforce the employer mandate "tax" on employers in a state that has not set up an exchange. Without the employer mandate, and without the exchanges to manage the insurance subsidies, ObamaCare falls apart.

That said, there is recourse for the Obama administration, which they have indicated will be sought - implementing federal exchanges in states that do not set up their own.

This creates a two-headed issue, however.

First, a minor matter of money. The bill itself does not budget any money to do the work for the state. This as we mentioned would amount to anywhere between $10 to $100 million per year, per state. A matter more of inconvenience, as the federal government will now have to find ways to obtain that money from other sources - and they will.

The second issue is one that FreedomWorks Vice President of Health Care Policy Dean Clancy believes is the key to nullifying Obamacare. Essentially, when the federal government implements an exchange, attempting to distribute the subsidies and enforce the mandates in the resisting states - it would be illegal. The states involved could then sue.

This alone will probably force Congress to reopen the health care law, opening up an opportunity to properly scrutinize Obamacare with Republicans in control of Congress this time around.

The simple equation for all of this is as follows:

No state exchanges = No mandates + No subsidies = Obamacare doesn’t work

In a July memorandum, Clancy lays out this simple path for the states to take in their battle against Obamacare:

States that have begun to set up health exchanges should stop.

States that have already approved legislation/funding for an exchange should rescind it.

States that have been offered money for exchange implementation should refuse it.

States that have received such money should, if possible, return it.

There's still time. And now, here's what you can do.

First, take a look at this table which shows where each state stands regarding health care exchanges. Currently, 14 states have chosen not to implement an exchange, while 17 others have taken no significant action or have been simply studying their options. If a good portion of those 17 states were to refuse action, it would put a majority at odds with Obamacare, striking a devastating blow to the plan.

Second, the deadline for states to establish their own exchange is Friday, November 16th. FreedomWorks is setting up state specific action pages for you. These will be an invaluable resource for concerned citizens to contact their governor and/or leading state legislators to send them a message, to urge them to hold the line in rejecting state health care exchanges. I have listed them below by state. Keep checking back on our Take Action page as more may be added in the near future.

In the end, Obamacare could possibly be nullified through all of our hard work, by making your voice heard in individual states, and through states taking action and fighting the federal government's illegal distribution of subsidies and enforcement of mandates within their borders.

The irony however is that this all starts with inaction - the states must not implement these exchanges. They must do nothing.

I agree with Richard. I am also irritated that no challenges to the "John Roberts ruling" have not been made by Congress. Since when does any judge have the right to change the wording in a law presented to him as passed by Congress, then rule on the law based on his personal changed wording of the law? Wouldn't the changed wording represent a new law which would then have to be voted on again by Congress? Or is it that I am just being too logical?
This pathetic ruling is why I have a: "Impeach John Roberts" sticker on my car. It doesn't matter if the judge is conservative or liberal, once they become activist, it's time for impeachment.

I think everyone reading this should pass this on to their complete address book. I know of no one who wants this unfair burden on American citizens. Please pass this on and take action. Do not take no for an answer from your state congress!!
PLEASE GOD HELP US!!!

11/16/2012

Aren't we all supposed to be treated "equally under the law"? Obamacare seems to violate that since the ruling elite (White House staff, legislators, unions, et al) are allowed different plans from Obamacare. Couldn't this be challenged? Why Rolls Royce plans for ruling elite who force us into a program that isn't equal to theirs?

The environmentalist left is always eager to talk about the fragility of natural ecosystems. Even slight alterations, they argue, can have huge ripple effects and unintended consequences. Thus, we’re forced to suffer through mosquito bites every summer instead of eradicating that godless species as we should have years ago. Still, the point about the interconnected nature of natural systems is not without merit, and there is such system that is routinely disrupted without adequate regard for the consequences. That system is the economy.

Following the release of the omnibus appropriations bill, which targets ObamaCare by prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds to bail out health insurance companies that participate on the exchanges, FreedomWorks Legislative Affairs Manager Josh Withrow commented:

The nation’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealthcare Group, made headlines last month with an announcement that the company was considering pulling out of ObamaCare. Now, Cleveland-based health insurer HealthSpan is actually doing what UnitedHealthcare threatened, disbanding its network of physicians and announcing that it will no longer participate in the individual markets under ObamaCare. In addition to dropping individual plans by the end of the year, HealthSpan will stop covering small businesses by January 31st.

ObamaCare’s risk corridor program faces a $2.5 billion shortfall, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, due to insurance companies paying out a greater number of claims than anticipated. As Congress approaches the deadline to pass an omnibus bill to fund the federal government, FreedomWorks strongly urges Congress to include language to prevent the Obama administration from using any taxpayer dollars to bailout insurance companies that participate in the ObamaCare exchanges.

In a perverse misunderstanding of cause and effect, government regulators always seem to respond to their failures by calling for more of the same. If a policy fails to produce the desired effect, it must be because it didn’t go far enough. Education spending a failure? Spend more! Centralized health care costing too much? Centralize further! The ability to admit a mistake and reverse a bad policy seems to be one that government employees do not possess.

Ever since Republicans took the majority in the Senate, the use of budget reconciliation to put a repeal of ObamaCare on the president’s desk has been a juicy apple hanging just out of reach. A budget reconciliation bill, unlike an ordinary bill, only requires 51 votes to pass, meaning a simple majority of Republicans should theoretically be able to pass it without going to Democrats for help.

Advocates of government intervention in markets usually frame the debate as a binary choice: “We need government to run things so the evil corporations don’t!” It’s an effective tactic, because most people have an inherent distrust of big business, and like the idea of a less money-grubbing alternative. Most of the time, Republicans they foolishly play into the narrative, arguing that given the choice between corporate masters or government ones, we should choose the former. Unsurprisingly, few people are convinced by this, and they shouldn’t be. The whole debate is based on a false dilemma that doesn’t exist. The discussion should not be about choosing our rulers, it should be about choosing whether to be ruled in the first place. As the 19th century individualist Lysander Spooner said, “a man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

Following the news the UnitedHealth Group, the largest insurance company in the United States, is scaling back its ObamaCare marketing and considering withdrawing from the exchanges, FreedomWorks CEO Adam Brandon commented:

The irreparable structural flaws of ObamaCare are being revealed at a frightening pace. 12 of the state insurance co-ops have failed, insurance premiums just keep rising, enrollment is predicted to be flat, the majority of newly insured Americans have actually just been shoved into Medicaid, and the insurance companies are asking for billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts to forestall even steeper price hikes. ObamaCare is dismantling and destabilizing the entire infrastructure of our health care system, and it’s hurting real people.